Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Suva challenging a High Court ruling that found his advice to revoke Barbara Malimali’s appointment as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) unlawful. A Notice and Grounds of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 021 of 2026) was filed on 11 March 2026, and the Prime Minister’s statement setting out the case lists four central legal and constitutional grounds.
The first ground contends the High Court misinterpreted Section 82 of the 2013 Constitution. Rabuka argues that the court erred by allowing ordinary legislation, including the FICAC Act 2007, to override constitutional provisions that govern the executive’s power to give advice to the President. “The appeal argues that the High Court misinterpreted section 82 of the 2013 Constitution,” the Prime Minister’s office said, framing the dispute as one of constitutional supremacy and the proper separation of powers.
The second ground focuses on the integrity of the original appointment process for the FICAC commissioner. The appeal asserts that the recommendation underpinning Malimali’s appointment was “flawed” and that appointments to high office must be free from material non-disclosure and procedural non-compliance. On that basis, the Prime Minister’s filing submits the appointment was void ab initio, meaning it should be treated as never having lawfully taken effect.
The third ground points to findings from an Independent Commission of Inquiry, which Rabuka says concluded the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had been compromised in how it handled the appointment. The appeal advances the position that, where state institutions are unable to perform their functions impartially, the Executive has a duty to act — and that Rabuka’s advice to the President to revoke the appointment was necessary to protect the integrity of the State.
The fourth ground challenges parts of the High Court’s judicial review decision, specifically the application of discretionary relief and the de facto doctrine — a legal principle sometimes used to validate actions taken by officers acting under the colour of authority. The Prime Minister says the High Court erred in its exercise of discretion and in applying the doctrine to the circumstances of this case.
The filing marks a reversal of the Government’s earlier stance. In the immediate aftermath of the High Court judgment, officials had indicated the Government would not appeal; at one point Rabuka even signalled he was weighing his political future. The High Court had ruled the revocation unlawful but, according to earlier coverage, declined to order Malimali’s reinstatement and referred related matters to the JSC.
In announcing the appeal, Rabuka framed it as raising “fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation, the rule of law, and the integrity of Fiji’s independent institutions.” The Prime Minister said he had instructed legal counsel to pursue the appellate path and that the matter will now be determined by the Court of Appeal.
The appeal moves the dispute from the High Court into Fiji’s appellate system and sets up what could be a significant constitutional test on the balance between executive advice, statutory frameworks for independent offices, and the role of oversight bodies such as the JSC. The Court of Appeal will schedule the next procedural steps.
Leave a comment